A:   Afghanistan   Albania   Algeria   Andorra   

Angola   Antigua and Barbuda   Argentina   Armenia   Australia   Austria   Azerbaijan

B:   Bahamas   Bahrain   Bangladesh   Barbados   Belarus   Belgium   Belize   

Benin   Bhutan   Bolivia   Bosnia and Herzegovina   Botswana   Brazil   

Brunei   Bulgaria   Burkina Faso   Burundi

C:   Cabo Verde  Cambodia   Cameroon   

Canada   Central African Republic   Chad   Chile   China   

Colombia   Comoros   Congo   Congo-Brazzaville   

Cook Islands   Costa Rica   Côte d’Ivoire   Croatia   Cuba   Cyprus   Czech Republic

D:   Denmark   Djibouti   Dominica   Dominican Republic

E:   Ecuador   El Salvador   Equatorial Guinea   Eritrea   Estonia   Eswatini   Ethiopia

F:   Fiji   Finland   Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   France

G:   Gabon   Gambia   Georgia   Germany   Ghana   Greece   Grenada   

Guatemala   Guinea   Guinea-Bissau   Guyana

H:   Haiti   Holy See   Honduras   Hungary 

I:   Iceland   India   Indonesia   Iran   Iraq   Ireland   Italy

J:   Jamaica   Japan   Jordan

K:   Kazakhstan   Kenya   Kiribati   Kuwait   Kyrgyzstan

L:   Laos   Latvia   Lebanon   Lesotho   Liberia   Libya   Liechtenstein   

Lithuania   Luxembourg

M:   Madagascar   Malawi   Malaysia   Maldives   

Mali   Malta   Marshall Islands   Mauritania   Mauritius  Mexico   Micronesia   Moldova   Monaco   

Mongolia   Montenegro   Morocco   Mozambique    Myanmar

N:   Namibia   Nauru   Nepal   Netherlands   New Zealand   Nicaragua   

Niger   Nigeria   Niue   Norway 

O:   Oman

P:   Pakistan   Palau  Palestine  Panama   Papua New Guinea   Paraguay   

Peru   Philippines   Poland   Portugal

Q:   Qatar

R:   Republic of Korea   Romania   Russia   Rwanda

S:   Saint Kitts and Nevis   Saint Lucia   Saint Vincent and the Grenadines   

Samoa   San Marino   São Tomé e Príncipe   Saudi Arabia   

Senegal   Serbia   Seychelles   Sierra Leone   Singapore   

Slovakia   Slovenia   Solomon Islands   Somalia   

South Africa   Spain   Sri Lanka   Sudan   Suriname  Sweden   Switzerland   Syria

T:   Tajikistan   Tanzania   Thailand   Timor-Leste   

Togo   Tonga   Trinidad and Tobago   Tunisia   Turkey   Turkmenistan   Tuvalu

U:   Uganda   Ukraine   United Arab Emirates   

United Kingdom   United States of America   Uruguay   Uzbekistan

V:   Vanuatu   Venezuela   Viet Nam

Y:   Yemen

Z:   Zambia   Zimbabwe

In an interview with three Austrian news outlets, Junker was quizzed on the way the UK media behaves on certain occasions.

It [British press] is, in part so, that they do not respect the human rights of political actors at all. Press freedom also has its limits.

While he could not say exactly where those limits lie, he urged that journalists should be able to “feel what you are allowed to do” and not “bring people in privacy in distress.”

Notably, during the interview, Juncker also said people should “stand up” to attempts to suppress press freedom, and that politics should not have its fingers in journalism.

The top brass also gave his take on another issue that’s seemingly marred his ties with the media world. He particularly castigated news outlets – not only from UK – for trying to make it look like he was responsible for the Brexit.

Saying he was asked by the government of former UK PM David Cameron not to interfere in the Brexit campaign, Juncker now regrets that the EU Commission failed to do so. It would have brought “proper questions” into the debate, the official argued.

The EU Commission president has taken his share of hits from the media, including the British press, from his appointment as commission president to alleged drinking problems, which he has repeatedly denied.

Juncker, 63, found himself in the media spotlight in July when he was filmed stumbling at a NATO event. Later, he left the building through a side entrance in a wheelchair. Dismissing accusations of drunken behavior and condemning the “insulting headlines” published that day, Juncker explained that he had suffered from a “painful attack of sciatica.”

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/440579-juncker-press-freedom-limits/

Read also:

http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35344

...

For all the efforts the Kremlin put into staging the World Cup earlier this year as a demonstration of Russia’s openness, news seems to keep pouring in about the blunders of its not-so-secret services. In the latest instalment yesterday, Bellingcat, an investigative website, published the name of the second Russian agent involved in the Skripal poisoning.

Official Russian reactions have ranged from denouncing a “stage-managed propaganda campaign” to sneering at “western hysteria about all-mighty Russian cyber-spies”. But for a Russian president who prides himself on efficiency and making Russia look powerful, it all smacks of a major setback.

And so on and on, Natalie Nougayrède, rabbits on and on for the Guardian...

This opinionator has no understanding of what she reports on.

First of all, the Skripal affair smells far more (99%) of a "coup monté" (to use her own native French lingo) by MI6 or by the "Russian Mafia" (1%) who hates Putin as much as Natalie does. So far no-one has seen the Skripals since their supposed poisoning in March — apart from a managed WEIRD interview with the daughter.

Natalie Nougayrède nearly destroyed the venerable French newspaper "Le Monde" when she was placed in charge. "Le Monde" is a centrist (slightly leaning left) respectable news outlet and Natalie took it to right, somewhat to the extreme right. Editors resigned "en masse". Eventually she had to resign herself. She speaks Russian and English, but hates the Russians far more than the Americans hate Russia who hate Russia far more than anything else. The Guardian gave her a platform from which to spruik her putrid venom against Putin. 

Meanwhile:

What is going on with the Skripal poisoning narrative?

Anyone who thinks they have a definitive answer at this point had better pause and reflect. Very little of anything is clear and nothing makes much sense.

The “official” UK story (except not really official since the government has been careful to keep its distance and its wiggle room on the details) was initially, and remains, contradictory, factually implausible and bereft of corroboration on most important details.

Almost all of the initial questions and areas of puzzlement remain unanswered and unresolved at this time. We still have no explanation for any of the following:

• Why Russia would want to murder Skripal at all let alone by use of something as exotic and untested as this still poorly defined substance known as “Novichok”. And why they apparently would do so at a time that dovetailed perfectly with UK/US plans in Syria, including a possible false flag chemical attack in Douma as a justification for a full-scale NATO attack on Damascus
• How the UK authorities were able to be so certain so quickly of Russian state involvement or of the source of the alleged “Novichok” used.
• What form the alleged nerve agent was in; was it gel (on the door knob) powder/aerosol (in Skripal’s car a/c system) or liquid (in a perfume bottle)?
• How, when or where the poison was allegedly administered.
• How the allegedly super-deadly nerve agent (supposedly many times more deadly than VX) did not kill either of the primary targets, or any of the secondary targets, save for the woman who allegedly literally sprayed it on her own skin.
• Where the two Skripals and DS Bailey are and why they either can’t or won’t speak to the press or appear in public. While fear (either of their “protectors” or of Russian reprisals) may be a possible reason in the case of the Skripals, it’s hard to see why this would apply to Bailey.
• Why the timing of the alleged poisoning does not fit with the itinerary of the two alleged suspects in the case, who did not arrive in Salisbury until several hours after the nerve agent was allegedly applied to the door handle (if indeed this is the one of many versions we are supposed to assume is true).
• Why there is no released CCTV footage placing the two suspects closer than 500 yards from Skripal’s house. No footage of them even in a road adjoining or leading directly to said house.
• Why two alleged GRU agents would behave in any of the ways Boshirov and Petrov behaved, including leaving a visible trail of their visit and browsing Salisbury high street for vintage coins.

To date these questions remain outstanding. But late last month we were treated to the added bizarreness of Bellingcat’s entry into the fray, culminating in the second part of their “report” released today (we discuss part one HERE), replete with a presser outside parliament by the man himself – Eliot Higgins.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/09/further-down-the-rabbit-hole-with-el...

Read from top.

And by the way, I think that Putin is smarter than to try to "divide" Europe, as Natalie claims... I would see Putin's "plan" (say hope) as trying to make Europe stronger and be able to wean itself from the US teats. This would make far more sense.

On Monday, Russian experts held a press-conference to respond to that paper. Moscow’s Permanent Representative to OPCW, Alexander Shulgin, told RT after the event that the chemical arms watchdog’s findings were “full of gaps, discrepancies and inconsistences.”

“We noted that the report by the FFM disregarded the briefing organized [at the OPCW headquarters] in [late April] 2018 with the unwilling witnesses or even ‘unwilling comedians’ that took part in the video performed by the White Helmets,” Shulgin said.

More than a dozen people testified back then, saying that there was no chemical attack in Douma and that they’d been forced to star in the fake footage, devised by the members of the White Helmets, a Western-backed aid group with apparent links to terrorists.

“There's a small footnote in the FFM’s report, saying that [the statements by] alleged witnesses… were dealt with like information from open sources. Somehow this very important information was dismissed.”

Shulgin recalled that the Syrian authorities have, on numerous occasions, reported that stockpiles of chemical weapons had been discovered in areas liberated from terrorists and the OPCW was well aware of that.

“In Douma, there was also a warehouse with chlorine barrels and the [FFM] experts didn’t accept to inspect it, alleging that it was too dangerous to manipulate these items.”

The investigation failed to uncover what really happened in Douma despite the fact that “from the very beginning the Syrians were very open. The [OPCW] Technical Secretariat experts were given access to all places they needed to examine. Moreover, the Russian military police did their best to secure the work of the Technical Secretariat experts,” the Russian envoy pointed out.

With Western politicians and mainstream media at the time swiftly pinning the blame for the Douma incident on the Syrian government, the OPCW was “under a kind of pressure” during the probe, Shulgin said.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/453582-opcw-douma-chemical-russia-syria/

Read from top.

How to fabricate lies in war

“Berlin Group 21” presents investigations into the manipulated OPCW report about Douma

von Karin Leukefeld

High-ranking former UN officials and scientists who have been co-operating as “Berlin Group 21” since 2021, have submitted their investigations into the OPCW [i.e. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] report about an alleged attack with chemical weapons in Douma, Syria, in April 2018, to members of the European parliament. They found proof of manipulation, bias and censorship.

The investigation had been requested by Irish MEP’s Mick Wallace and Claire Daly, both members of the Independents 4 Change delegation. In the European Parliament they belong to the faction GUE/NGL The Left. An introductory note to the investigation states, its aim was to encourage independent analysis and discussion of this “serious controversy” in the EU parliament.1 Moreover, the OPCW member states and the OPCW administration should make an effort “... to resolve the current controversy [about the Douma report] in accordance with the CW [i. e., Chemical Weapons] Convention and the Charter of the United Nations”.
  Founding members of the “Berlin Group 21” are Brazilian ambassador José Mauricio Bustani (first Director-General of the OPCW which was launched in 1997), Professor Richard Falk (Emeritus Professor of International law, Princeton University and UN Special Rapporteur about the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory), Dr h.c. Hans-C. von Sponeck (who has served in the UN for 32 years, as UN Assistant Secretary-General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq among other positions), and Dr Piers Robinson (Co-Director Organisation for Propaganda Studies who has analysed the role of media in conflicts, foreign affairs and interventions as exemplified by the 2003 invasion of Iraq and by the conflict in Syria).

The prelude

After the whistle had been blown from within the OPCW about their meddling with the original fact-finding results at a Courage Foundation panel in October 2019, media outlets such as NachDenkSeiten have written about the controversial OPCW report on Douma time and again in recent years.2
  Information about an alleged chemical weapons attack had been spread by the “White Helmets” on 7 April 2018. They distributed dramatic images and video clips from an underground hospital in Douma to the world via social media. International television stations and agencies immediately jumped on the story. The “White Helmets” claimed the Syrian army had dropped gas-filled cylinders from a helicopter over residential apartment buildings and killed at least 40 people. The “White Helmets” also distributed images of corpses in a cellar. The USA, Great Britain, Paris and Berlin endorsed the allegations of the “White Helmets”.
  The Syrian army denied the claims and the Syrian government pleaded the OPCW to send a fact-finding mission (FFM). The UN security council agreed and the mission headed for Douma. However, when the OPCW inspectors were gathering in Beirut, preparing for their travel to Damascus, the USA, Great Britain and France bombed targets in Syria in the night of 14 April 2018, explicitly as a retaliation for Douma. This way the three permanent UN security council members and veto powers had already made it clear that they were not interested in the findings of this OPCW mission. The OPCW leadership, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly kept silent.
  Meanwhile the OPCW inspectors travelled to Damascus and began their work in Douma. They took soil samples, inspected the alleged sites of the attack and interviewed eye witnesses. They could not locate the corpses from the cellar in the “White Helmets” photographs. Their burial sites remain unknown. Back in The Hague, where the OPCW resides, they issued their interim report which has to be done within four weeks according to OPCW regulations. But then something strange happened. The team of Douma inspectors was dissolved and a new interim report started to circulate.

“Gravest concern”

Under the headline “Grave concern about the ‘redacted’ Douma report”3 one inspector of the OPCW Douma team approached his superiors in a letter on 22 June 2018. “I wish to express, as a member of the Fact-Finding Mission team that conducted the investigation into the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April, my gravest concern at the redacted version of the FFM report”, the letter says. This letter as well as other internal documents on the issue were leaked between 2019 and 2020 to the internet platform WikiLeaks and published. “As far as I know, this was authorised by the ODG”, which stands for the Office of the (OPCW) General Director. It goes on: “I was struck by how much it misrepresents the facts …”, apparently no other member of the Douma team had the opportunity to even read the redacted report. “Many of the facts and observations outlined in a full version are inextricably interconnected and, by selectively omitting certain ones, an unintended bias has been introduced into the report, undermining its credibility. In other cases, some crucial facts that have remained in the redacted version have morphed into something quite different to what was initially drafted. With your permission I would like to focus on some especially disturbing aspects of the redacted report.”
  A summary of statements4 follows, which the whistle-blower felt were especially important: “The statement ‘The team has sufficient evidence at this time to determine that chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical, was likely released from cylinders’, is highly misleading and not supported by the facts. … The original report has extensive sections regarding the placement of the cylinders at both locations … These sections are essentially absent from the redacted report. I am requesting that the fact-finding report be released in its entirety as drafted.” Should the redacted version be published the author “kindly asked” to add his differing remarks according to paragraph 62 section II of the verification appendix of the chemical weapons convention.
  The letter led to several reactions but neither was the OPCW leadership willing to publish the original Douma report, nor to add the memorandum of the whistle-blower to the redacted report. Ian Henderson und Brendan Whelan, the two OPCW whistle-blower who went public since, were threatened, pressurised, insulted and defamed by the OPCW leadership.
  The letter was just the starting point of a long controversy continuing to this day. Many more documents were leaked to WikiLeaks and published.5
  The Courage Foundation organised a panel at which the public was informed about the differing viewpoints regarding the OPCW Douma report. The statement they had issued drew international public attention to the case and lead to appeals to the OPCW General Director and OPCW member states to launch a new investigation. Without success.

New investigation urgently needed

Now a new investigation was published and their authors justify their work with three important arguments: The families of the at least 40 people who did die in Douma have a right to know what caused the death of their relatives. The credibility of the OPCW and the trust of its member states in the organisation should be restored. Whistle-blowers who have been brave enough to point at maldevelopments have earned our respect and should be protected by the civil society. It was not just the OPCW who are to blame here – neither the UN general assembly nor the UN security council made any efforts to solve the controversy. The way the original report about an alleged chemical attack in Douma was handled and the subsequent – illegal, in terms of international law – bombing of targets in Syria by the USA, UK and France jeopardised international peace and security as outlined in the UN charter.6
  The “Berlin Group 21” (BG21) published their report in English. Their main conclusion was already expressed in the title: „A Review of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical WeaponsFact-Finding Mission Report into the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Douma, Syria, in April 2018 – Evidence of Manipulation, Bias and Censorship”.
  This grave conclusion is backed-up by many documents, first-hand analyses from highly qualified expert sources. In addition, there are numerous internal messages from within the OPCW which were published by WikiLeaks.7

The investigation

In section one a brief background summary illustrates what actually happened on 7 April 2018 in Douma and describes how the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the OPCW came into being as well as which role the United Nations played in this process. Section two gives a chronological order of events around the allegations of chemical weapons being used in Douma and the FFM mission. It starts in April 2018 and covers the time to December 2019 and beyond. Section three summarises the four OPCW reports about the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma. This includes the original interim report by the FFM team who had been in Douma (June 2018), the redacted interim report (July 2018) and the FFM final report (March 2019). Finally, section four presents conclusions and some proposals for concrete measures “... in order to establish an accurate account of what happened in Douma as well as, more widely, to restore the credibility of the OPCW”.

Proving manipulation, bias and censorship

In the annex the facts as presented by the four OPCW reports are listed in detail. Annex 1 deals with the statements of toxicology and forensic pathology, the “unjustified elimination of the original toxicology conclusion” and the “failure to explore significant evidence indicating alternative cause of death”. Annex 2 contains the witness testimonies, the ways where and how the witnesses had been interviewed and the “failure to resolve anomalous witness claims”. Moreover, erroneous assumptions about gas distribution are discussed. Annex 3 covers the insufficient chemical analyses and the “failure to explore significant evidence indicating alternative explanation for findings”. Annex 4 deals with ballistics. Its focus is on the strange and eye-catching position of two gas cylinders as well as the explanation for a hole in the roof which one of the cylinders allegedly had fallen through.
  The investigation was distributed to all members of the European parliament, to the leadership of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weaponsand its member states, the UN general secretary, the UN member states and to the UN security council. The German minister for foreign affairs received a copy, too. All recipients of the investigation are called upon “to resolve the current controversy in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Charter of the United Nations.”

“Deeply disturbing”

“This document should be deeply disturbing to anyone who believes that the UN should be promoting respect for international law as a means to reduce global violence”, as Professor Theodore Postol writes in his foreword to the investigation of the “Berlin Group 21”. Postol is a professor of physics and used to teach at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Should the possible corruption around the OPCW report not be thoroughly investigated, he warns that “… this will surely result in a seriously diminished future global reliance on both the Chemical Weapons Convention and international law.” He predicts: “The future legitimacy of the UN and OPCW as enforcers of international law will simply cease to exist, if this level of overtly unprofessional and amateurish analysis is allowed to stand without being corrected. This will then be an unfortunate legacy left to the world by those who are now claiming to be the guardians of the truth.”  •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2023/nr-18-22-august-2023/wie-kriegsluegen-fabriziert-werden

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.......................